Since we are stucked with the OT, I have an idea that (maybe) is worthy of discussion. I believe someone already brought this up. Anyway, for overtime, allow each team 1 points each and the winning team also receive an extra point. Thus, the winner in overtime gets 2, the loser 1. Also to spice overtime up a little bit (give MLs a chance to score instead of a tie like many of the games played this season) how about playing a 20 minutes golden goal overtime with no side-switch like halftime. In the first 5 minutes, 9 players vs. 9 players. From 5-10 minutes, 8 vs. 8, and if necessary from 10 to 20 minutes, 7 players vs. 7 players. If no goal is scored, then each team would only get the 1 point. Allow 2 substitutions in overtime. Of course, this is not FIFA-approved, but I believe it could be done in the interest of the fans, afterall, this is what the game is about. The enjoyment of the fan. I will certainly enjoy the game better if most of the games do not end in a draw. And 1 extra goal. What do you people think? Could it work? Would it improve the current overtime games? *Assuming that we can't get rid of overtime.* But for me, I prefer overtime instead of no overtime.
I don't particularly like overtime, but have only one major gripe. If we have to have it, I would be very pleased to see them just play 10 minutes without switching ends. It may just be me, but it always seems that things are finally getting interesting when the whistle blows and it's time to switch sides.
I was saying that when they first got rid of the shootout in favor of the OT periods. Teams managing to get a tie should get a point even if they drop the decision in OT. Teams winning in OT shouldn't deserve the full three. I wouldn't go for the rest of what you suggested.
If you're going to fundamentally change how the game is played, at least make it interesting. Play "three-legged," blindfold the keeper, allow handballs, play with three or four balls at a time...that sort of thing.
When you give a point for overtime, you encourage bunkering, negative play. Teams should always be pushed away from playing for a draw, since that's the default mentality of many teams, from Juventus to the A-League. It also makes the standings a confusing, shootout-era morass. I'm sure if I was motivated, I could figure out this year's NHL standings, but I find 3-1-0 leaves my mind open to ponder life's greater mysteries.
i would hate to be etch's partner in the 3 legged play... that's a lot of weight to lug around although it would be damn interesting to see mchead tied to frankie... frankie trying to run with him and mchead throwing frankie around like a rag doll on headers
Posted by S. If you're going to fundamentally change how the game is played, at least make it interesting. Play "three-legged," blindfold the keeper, allow handballs, play with three or four balls at a time...that sort of thing. .................................................................... Wow. Are you sure it is a fundamental change? I am sure it had been done in the past where 2 or 3 players from each side ejected from the game, thus each team has to play with 8 vs. 8 or something like that. I know it is a change and likely not be approve by FIFA, but for the improvement of the game (for the fans, or most of the fans anyway) it should be look at. It is still soccer, the only different is less players playing in the 10 or so minutes of OVERTIME, just for OVERTIME. The game is played for the fans, remember that. To me, this would improve the game, and it is still pure SOCCER or FOOTBALL. Sure to make it interesting, the game can be changed in many drastic ways. I am not suggesting widening the goal or "blindfolding the keeper", just allow less player for overtime. There is no FIFA rule regulating overtime and the number of players in overtime. Just from my standpoint, MLS games can be improve IN OVERTIME. It is just an idea. There is 0.01 % chance of it happening. Yes, soccer is called the "beautiful game" for a reason, but for a league like MLS that is competing with football, baseball, hockey, basketball, and golf, a slight improvement means a greater appeal to the regular fans. (if making 8 vs 8 in overtime improve the game). I believe it does. Is there anyone here agree?
This is a very tired topic and I have no desire to argue about things but I should make this correction. Law 7, 8 and 10 all cover extratime topics. There may be others but that's what I knew offhand. There must be two periods of equal duration, teams must switch sides and, although I don't think it's stated explicitly, I think it's pretty clear implicitly that all the ordinary rules are supposed to apply.
I was thinking players would be tied to members of the opposite team, so McBride would likely be tied to someone like Rusty Pierce or Ryan Suarez. Just to make it interesting, the goalies would be tied to a lucky fan in attendance. You know people would pay money to see that.
OT's on the way out... I think it's been hinted rather strongly that the league is going to drop OT after this season. They're pretty much between a rock and a hard place. People want a winner but their broadcasting deals limit them to the two 5 minute periods. There doesn't seem to be enough action in 5 minutes to resolve anything. Sounds like dropping OT is the only reasonable solution. By the way, the A League plays two 15 minute periods of OT. Golden goal but it must be tough because the teams play a lot of games on consecutive days. They allow 5 substitutes, but still most folks would agree the players really earn their money in the A league.
and machine gun nests behind each goalpost, and sub-on-the-fly-paratchutests to beat the offside trap with PREJUDICE.
I've thought long and hard about a way to improve MLS overtime. I think I've got something good, feel free to tell me what you like and don't like about my idea. why not just let the home team use thier hands in overtime? You can award the home team 1 point if they throw the ball into the goal, 2 points if they throw the ball into the goal and it is raining and the away team will automatically get 3/4 of a point for enduring the banality of overtime. Also the first overtime period would last 45 seconds and the second overtime period would last 2 hours. If you score a goal in the first overtime (45 seconds) then you can bring weapons to your next match but must play with blindfolds. I think all of this is covered under Law 11 rule 27c in the FIFA laws of the game home edition board game. or we can just scrap overtime altogether like we should have from the start.
Christ, I just can't keep my big mouth shut. Certainly there must be changes to overtime, short of eliminating overtime. I think everyone realizes that American sport is different, that there ought to be a serious reduction in the number of draws that occur in soccer. The fans largely require winners, plain and simple. This is a dealbreaker, no two ways about it. And if that necessitates drastic violations of the so-called Laws of the Game, then so be it. We're not searching for the cure for cancer, we are simply trying to make a sport and a culture compatible with each other. We have to keep overtime. I don't know how it will work, but I have faith that eventually it will.
Law 7 Extra Time Competition rules may provide for two further EQUAL periods to be played. Law 10 For matches ending in a draw, competition rules may state provisions involving extra time, or other procedures approved by the International F.A. Board to determine the winner of a match. This might help. Nothing in Law 8 btw.
Do you not think the American soccer fan is a bit further ahead on the evolutionary timeline than, say, the fans of the rest of our sports? No one's ever even tried to give us a chance. I know I'm smart enough to handle a draw, and I think most of BigSoccer is as well. Give Americans a chance to embrace the Game as it is- you might be pleasantly surprised.
Judging from this post, and the many like it, I'd say the American soccer fan is one step removed from a single cell aemoba. Certainly, you share a brain with one if you honestly believe American soccer fans are any different from other American sports fans. Sachin
It has nothing to do with being evolved or not. "Real" baseball fans cannot justify the existence of a designated hitter, or why the infield fly rule was invented. As a "real" American football fan, I don't care for half of the penalties called by the refs. "Pass interference"? And if you start a fight in ice hockey, that is NOT a minor penalty, you HAVE to eject him. But the NHL says different. You and I may be a bit more evolved than the rest, but the rest is who we are after. Or who we are supposed to be after, if soccer is to have any sort of chance in the mainstream. Unless you like being marginalized. Take comfort that every other major American sport has been adjusted for any number of reasons, most likely to accomodate someone or something that is important for such an endeavor to continue. Soccer? No different. It's still a dealbreaker.
OK KIDS... THE NFL IS INCORPORATING DRAWS.... (meaning its working its way into acceptance) THE UPPER HAND IS ON THE OTHER FOOT NOW GENTLEMAN.... THE TIDE IS TURNING!!! VICTORY IS AT HAND!!! errrr... A LACK OF VICTORY IS AT HAND!! Soon the NFL will resemble soccer so much i'll merge with MLS and adopt FIFA rules.
the problem is that you can change any rule in soccer that you want and disguise it as "Americization" of the game. They had this silly thing called a "shootout" and even MLS once toyed around with the idea of using bigger goals. Let's play the game the way everyone else does. It works for the entire world, it should work for us. Yes I know the J-League has overtime and the ASL does as well....but let's face it, most people can accept a draw - 90 minutes of football is enough to determine who the better team is and if 90 minutes goes by and both teams are even - that's good enough for me.
J-league dropped it. and oddly enough the scoring, esp in the last minutes, has gone up. the idea that people NEED a win is stupid. does anyone HERE feel that way?? i think its one of those reasons not to like soccer like "its foreign", that makes no sense.
Yeah, I do think we're a bit different. It won't always be the case, but, for better or worse, the sport here was first adopted (and continues to be controlled to some extent) by people with the cash/education/inclination to travel overseas and see other cultures. That in and of itself separates them from the general American public. Where I live, the "international" factor alone is enough to turn lots of folks off, just like F1 and real motorcycle racing (on a road course, F1-style) do. You may consider yourself to be no more than level with people like them, but I do not. Whether we need them on board for the Game to grow here (we do) is another argument entirely. So says the man who equates the American soccer fan with the American NASCAR/rasslin'/fishin'/huntin' fan. Whatever.
Got your point. But the fact remains that they haven't even tried to play the Game the way everyone else does. That's all I ask- try. MLS ain't going away now, and certainly not because of the rules. If it doesn't work, then change the rules to suit the masses. But don't just start off with a shallow product. Every other major American sport was invented here (including Canada). That's discomforting, as it suggests we can't handle diversity in sport (,either). Question: Are there any changes to the American game that would make you consider not watching it?
Right. I meant that law 7 states that the conditions of law 8 apply to extratime. That's where it says, for instance, that teams have to switch sides. Sorry for the confusion.
um. american football is football-soccer related. baseball evolved from rounders. the aztecs played a freaky version of basketball. the vast number of FOREIGN besoburo (baseball) players hints otherwise, as do the growing number of foreign beesketball players.